All Episodes
Previous Next
July 7, 2014 - Rush Limbaugh Program
36:56
July 7, 2014, Monday, Hour #1
| Copy link to current segment

Time Text
Welcome to today's edition of the Rush 24-7 podcast.
And we are back at the EIB Southern Command where I have control of the ditto camp.
You don't know this, but when we're outside the EIB Southern Command, Union employees have control over the switch.
Oh, I just turned it on.
We got something wrong with the white balance.
I look like I've used some of that artificial overnight sun tan stuff.
That's a little better.
Except, wait a minute, now it's not aimed right.
Brian, get back in here.
I got it.
In fixing the white melons, you misaimed it just a little bit.
You need to switch it back to my what would be this way.
There we go.
There we go.
That's good.
Perfect.
Greetings, my friends.
Great to have you here.
Rush Limbaugh back at the EIB Southern Command.
A telephone number if you want to be on the program 800-282-2882.
And the email address, L Rushball at EIBnet.com.
I don't know where you been, Snurdley walks in here, brings me his stack of showpep, the show prep that he uh he wanted me to see today.
And he's out rates.
Have you not been listening to this program?
He's just figured.
More than half of privately insured women are getting free birth control under Obama's health law, a major coverage shift that's likely to advance.
And it talks about how the average annual saving for women is 269.
And it just hit you that everybody's demanding a benefit.
269 a year, and women can't pay that on their own.
The taxpayers have to provide the 269 dollars.
Yes.
This is.
Well, here's the thing.
I know women have demanded independence and power and feminism and all this.
And now demanding everybody pay.
I don't even know how many women really are demanding it.
You know, the it's leftist women that are that are pushing this, but I learned something about this over the weekend that I hadn't stopped to consider.
And you and I, you know, Mr. Snerdley and I, and I assume a lot of you folks too, we're from the old school where you provide for yourself.
Uh we were we were raised that that whatever you want or need, you go out and get a job and earn enough to buy it.
And if you'd and if you can't afford it, then you put it off until you can.
But the last thing you do is ask somebody else.
You don't go down the neighborhood and knock on the front door people and ask them to buy whatever you want.
You just you you put it that's the way we were raised.
But the uh the thing I have learned is that men are totally supportive.
Today's young men are totally supportive of somebody else buying women their birth control pills because whatever the it it make sure the women are taken.
Sex is what it's all about.
Have it.
Pajama boy types of having sex, sex, sex, that's what it's all about.
Everybody wants it, and whatever it takes to make it safe.
And if the taxpayers, if it if it takes the taxpayers buying women birth control, the men are for it too.
It's cheap insurance, and if if if this is what women want before they'll have sex, then fine.
So this, this, this is the change.
This that you and I were slow to arrive to because we were brought up with the idea that uh sex has consequences uh, and that it's somewhat special, and that if you want something, you provide it yourself.
You don't ask somebody else.
That's all out the window now.
As you will hear on today's program.
Uh, ladies and gentlemen, so much.
Let me give you just a little headline rundown.
There was a piece of the New York Times over the weekend, a feminist scholar claims that we have been uh what's the we have been, I guess essentially defrauded by the Declaration of Independence.
There should be a period When there isn't.
Or there is that there is a period that should not be there.
The period comes after life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness.
Because what comes next should not have been offset with a period.
There's a fake period in the original parchment.
And the original purpose, according to this feminist scholar writing about it in the New York Times, the original purpose of the declaration was in fact to establish a huge, big government to guarantee and provide those rights, life, liberty, pursuit of happiness.
Now, say what you will, but this is a scholar who is teaching your kids, and she just got ink in the New York Times.
These people never go away.
You can sit here and laugh at it and reject it as crazy, but I'm telling you, it's going to be picked up on, and it's going to become a discussion topic of some seriousness at some point, maybe this week, if it has it already, on cable TV.
Doesn't the truth doesn't matter.
What do you mean?
How can you read history and come to a conclusion?
This is about changing history, not acknowledging it.
This is about the full-fledged assault on the founding of the country that centered on self-reliance, rugged individualism, and small government.
They're attacking this notion, and they're doing it via young, impressionable minds who are already predisposed to government stepping in and solving every problem.
Do you think these people you think this woman's even read the Federalist Papers?
This is my point.
Every day we're playing defense.
Every day we get up and we look at the latest assault, and we don't have time to advance anything.
We are just every day getting up, seeing whatever assault they are taking now, making on our great country, and just standing and trying to stop it.
The Google founders, Sergey Brynn and Larry Page, granted an interview, both of them together, uh sometime recently, read about it over the weekend.
And Larry Page, who's the CEO, says the whole idea of full-time work is outmoded.
Uh it takes people away from the things in life that are truly meaningful and enjoyable.
And so we need to be thinking about how we can move everybody to part-time work and compensate them fairly, so that they have time to have a well-adjusted and all-encompassing life that is not focused on dreary work.
The other Google co-founder, Sergey Brynn, was dead serious when he said that it is time that we got serious about getting everybody out of their own cars, getting rid of the private, the privately owned automobile.
So those are three things.
And there's there's a there's a uh a couple of others, but uh the the this is what I mean every day.
It's an all-out assault on essentially the founding of the country.
I I want to take you back, I'll play a sound right for you, me, just to show you, just to illustrate, well, yeah, call it my prescience.
Uh back in January of 2009.
Remember when I said I hope he fails, and it caused a fire storm.
Well, I knew then is the point where we were headed because I know what liberalism is, and I know who Obama is, and I educated myself to what he believed and who he was, and it was no mystery where we were headed.
In June, six months, almost to the day, June 11th of 2009, six months after I said I hope he fails.
Here is a great example being on the cutting edge.
I told everybody in 2009 that Barack Obama's America would be marked by chaos, turmoil, and violence.
Here is me, your beloved host, June 11th, 2009.
Whatever it is, income level, age race sex, they have to get people focusing on all of the things wrong in America because of these inequities.
Income level, age, race, sex, discrimination, what have you.
To be frank, President Obama needs you to be contemptuous of others so that he can appeal to you emotionally.
His emotional appeal is based on creating tension.
And the left has been doing this in this country for years.
Feminism is a way to get men and women arguing with one another about things and get them distracted.
All of these isms, all of this grouping of people, and then claiming they're all victims, is simply about creating contempt.
So they want you to hate doctors and insurance companies now.
That's the next target.
They want you to hate doctors and insurance companies so that they can take over the entire industry at the federal government.
They want you to hate executives so that they can impose their will on big companies.
They want you to hate people who make more money than you do so that they can seize their private property.
Sponsoring hate, promoting hate, is an exclusive of the left.
They own it.
They thrive on the promotion of hate and angst and contempt and unrest and chaos.
It is the only way to distract people sufficiently so that the left can accomplish its statist objectives.
They want turmoil.
And if it doesn't exist, they create it.
And so now let's return to the news, shall we?
Thanks to the New York Times of all places, we now know.
Get ready.
We now know that 300,000 illegal aliens have come into our country just since April.
Now I want to put that number in perspective.
It's not the 65,000 we originally were told about in January in this onslaught of unaccompanied children.
It's them plus everybody else.
Since April, 300,000 illegal aliens, and this is a figure cited proudly and happily by the New York Times.
To put that number in perspective, since we were just talking about the 70th anniversary of D Day, 300,000 is twice as many illegal aliens entering this country as there were Allied soldiers landing at Normandy on D Day.
There are 150,000 soldiers that landed as part of the D-Day invasion.
That invasion was the result of the largest armada in history sailing from the U.K. And since April, we've had twice that many illegal aliens.
And all of them are poorly educated.
All of them are low-skilled, and all of them are poor.
And Obama, on July 4th, celebrating the ethnic diversity of America, said, don't make it harder for the best and the brightest to come here.
In other words, this invasion of 300,000 since April represents the best and the brightest.
And if you oppose it, then you are what?
Well, racist and bigoted.
Of course, we're not supposed to call this an invasion.
And maybe that's right.
I mean, maybe it isn't an official invasion where the country's leaders invite the invaders in.
That's what's happening here.
These people are being invited in.
These people are being transferred by us in many cases.
The New York Times also in this story let another detail slip out over the weekend.
More than 85% of the so-called unaccompanied alien children from Central America, that me Guatemala, El Talador or Ecuador.
Almost 85% of them have already been released to quote unquote relatives in America.
More than 85% matches the 90% that we've been told by other sources.
So we've got the New York Times, 85% others news agencies have you used the figure of 90% have been released by ICE and border patrol to relatives in this country.
So virtually none of these children have been sent back to their home countries, and they won't be sent back.
What's next to happen is their parents will be found and also brought here.
Secretary of Homeland Security Jay Johnson says we have to do right by these children.
And that means releasing them to anybody who claimed to be a relative.
And as we mentioned last week, it's already been reported, these people are just making up families.
I mean, how can you check out 300,000 unknown people arrived since April, children, and they've already been connected with family?
How do we know that we don't we don't even know who's here?
We don't even know the total number, and yet we've found family members of these hundred thousand.
Now, back to the New York Times, and their 300,000 illegal alien number who have been arrived arrived here since April.
That 300,000 is comprised of the 52,000 unaccompanied alien children plus 240,000 adult illegal aliens.
In other words, 240,000 illegal alien adults came over the border since April.
This is in the New York Times.
They're happy about it.
They're proudly announcing this.
Now, we didn't hear a peep about it until this New York Times story over the weekend.
We've been focusing on unaccompanied children.
52,000, 65,000.
Now all of a sudden the number's 300,000, and we're happy and it's the best and brightest, and man, oh man, this is great.
That's what America's really all about, but we didn't hear a peep about it from anybody in the media or from our government.
In fact, all we've been hearing from the news media is how illegal immigration is tapered off.
Almost nothing.
You remember that?
Tapered off because our economy was in the doldrums.
A quick timeout, we'll continue with much more after this, my friends.
So sit tight.
So I checked the email during the break, and I'm getting a little bit ahead of myself here, but I'm going to answer this.
Rush, why would the Google guys be all in favor of more part-time jobs?
Ladies and gentlemen, uh part-time work has been the goal of socialists for years.
I mean, the French, the French have tried to reduce the work week to 30 hours for years, and there's a there's a reason for it from their perspective.
It is done, and uh Larry Page even addresses this.
As you will hear when I get to this, it's done to disguise the fact that there are fewer jobs.
Look, we've got 95 to 100 million Americans not working, right?
Well, that's even an embarrassment to the socialists.
So if you convert a significant number of full-time jobs to part-time jobs, you can end up hiring people.
You don't have to create any new jobs whatsoever.
You just give them up, each job now done by two or three people, and you put more people to work.
You have your welfare state to provide for them what their jobs do not.
You have a shorter work week, you have shorter work hours, you've got happier people thanking the government for this new lifestyle change, voting for Democrats left and right, and you get to hire more people.
You don't have to pay them health care because there's a 30-hour minimum per week.
So you offload that to the government.
So this is the way the socialists spread the wealth around.
They don't create any new jobs.
The one thing they know socialism is not About creating jobs, folks.
It never has socialism is about government providing for people.
And there's no such thing as debt or too much debt.
That's not in the equation, particularly here in the United States.
So this is how we spread the wealth around.
We don't have to create a single new job.
We just divvy every job up into two or three jobs, make everybody a part-timer.
Um they're working.
And look what we've expanded the number of people working.
We bring down unemployment, we bring down that number.
But it's more part-time work is all about the illusion of there being more jobs.
And in fact, we are seeing that in our own jobs reports.
It's sort of it's a form of featherbetting, if you want to look at it that way.
But the point of it is that the whole idea of full-time work not possible in America.
And if those days are gone, that's the mindset that's problematic.
Having more fun than a human being should be allowed to have Rush Limbaugh here on a cutting edge of societal evolution now.
Speaking of full and part-time work, and I'm still having gotten to the impetus for this today, which is the Google guys, and that's coming up.
The Politico has a story today.
It might as well be called the Democrat National Committee PR site.
Why liberals are abandoning the Obamacare employer mandate.
Now, folks, this is so obvious as to be risable.
For those of you on real end, it means laughable.
The politico is now pretending that the Democrats have changed their minds about the employer mandate.
Yeah, because you know, you get an election coming up, and the employer mandate providing health care, employer mandate providing we can't oh no, that's just that's not gonna look good for us going into the election.
So this is a story about how the Democrats and some of the uh brightest scholars at Democrat think tanks also agree, you know, we've got a drop.
We have to abandon the employer mandate.
And this story is about pretending that the Democrats have actually changed their minds, because they haven't.
This is just an election year uh maneuver, because once the midterms are over, they're they're they're they're gonna get rid of it, um, which is a preposterous lie.
The story says they're gonna get rid of it in no way.
The Democrats just know they have to say this to get campaign donations from businesses and to try to fool the low information voters.
And once the elections are over in November, it's gonna be back to the anti-business tick as usual.
And Obamacare will once again be impossible to change because it's the law of the land.
Have you ever noticed that whenever anybody other than Democrats wants to change Obama?
No, no, no, no, you can't settle settled law now.
Obamacare is a law of the land.
You you can't change it.
When Obama comes along, or the Democrats come along and they want to issue a waiver or say abandon the employer mando.
Oh, fine, absolutely.
In fact, it's a brilliant idea.
Yep, let's get right on that.
There, of course, there is no law of the land when the Democrats want to change it.
But if there's any doubt about how hard the Democrats are running away from Obamacare, check out the headline from today from the AP.
Senate Democrats, Obamacare?
What's that?
Senate Democrats are actually trying to pass off the Obamacare.
That's old.
There's nothing here.
What Obamacare?
What's that?
Now, the political story, Robert Gibbs' prediction that Obamacare's employer mandate would be jettisoned, shocked Democrats back in April.
And I remember him saying it.
By July, the former aide, longtime confidante of President Obama had a lot more company.
More and more liberal activists and policy experts who help shape Democrat thinking on health care have concluded that penalizing Businesses, if they don't offer health insurance is an unnecessary element of the Affordable Care Act that may do more harm than good.
They don't believe this.
This is simply something they think they've got to do now.
The employ the key element of the employer mandate, there are two parts of it.
They must provide health insurance.
If they don't, there is a fine.
Now, let's be honest about something else.
Let's just remember the fines, both on the employee, the individual mandate, and the employer mandate, people who do not go out and get insurance or do not provide it, have to pay a fine.
Those fines.
Now, forgive me for speaking this way.
I'm just speaking within the context of the law.
Those fines are a primary funding mechanism.
The one thing this story does not reference and does not talk about.
Getting rid of the employer mandate also gets rid of the fine for not providing health insurance.
And that means they are getting rid of one of the primary funding sources.
Now, folks, at every turn, every one of these waivers or changes in Obamacare.
A fundamental aspect is that they are eliminating a funding source.
Now, I'm I'm not, I don't want to be misunderstood.
I'm not speaking in favor of Obamacare at all.
Haven't changed my mind on it, do not misunderstand.
But simply taking it as a piece of legislation or looking at it that way, there are many ways that they wrote in this thing being paid for.
Don't forget, they promised that Obamacare was going to lower the deficit.
They promised that Obamacare was going to lower premiums $2,500.
They promised that the uninsured would be insured.
They promised all kinds of great things with this.
And many of the things they promised included vastly reduced costs for everybody.
Now, as they eliminate the funding mechanisms with all of these waivers and exemptions and changes, guess what?
We have here the equivalent of Social Security with no payroll tax.
How long would Social Security have lasted if there was no payment mechanism for it?
FICA on your paycheck is how Social Security theoretically is paid for and was at the outset.
They're taking away, they're eliminating not all by any means, but enough of the funding mechanisms that this – This legislation is it's just going to end up more chaos, and there's going to be more contempt.
There's going to be more turmoil.
There isn't going to be anywhere near the money to pay for this because they are not getting rid of Obamacare.
They are just, as they've always done, temporarily suspending the parts of Obamacare that make everybody hate it.
The things they lied about when it was all getting going, they are they're eliminating so that people do not see the real punitive aspects of this law.
And in this case, they're trying to lighten or lessen the blow on business.
is By simply telling, you know what, you don't have to provide an health insurance.
It was unrealistic.
We shouldn't have put that in there at all, they're saying, we're gonna get rid of the employer mandate, and they're getting rid of the fund.
So no longer are employers going to have to provide health insurance.
Well, somebody's gonna have to provide the individual mandate's still alive.
They haven't gotten rid of that.
So you're still gonna have to go get it or pay the fine, but businesses are let off the hook here for providing it and or paying a fine.
Now, remember, this is all just what they're saying now in the run-up to the midterms.
When they need donations from businesses to fund their campaigns, will they know that Obamacare is already hated by the voters?
But if there is any doubt about how hard the Democrats are running away from Obamacare, I just want to remind you again of that AP headline, Senate Democrats?
Obamacare?
What's that?
And the way that story starts is this.
Leading Democrats in Congress aren't bolting from the employer mandate, at least not before the November election.
But the White House has delayed it twice in the past year, dubbed it not critical, and said it'll be phased in more slowly when it begins next year.
Democrats remain committed to it, the individual mandate, which is the core of the coverage expansion to the new Obamacare markets.
Folks, I'm telling the they're creating an absolute hodgepodge mess out of this.
All for their own electoral benefit.
Virtually, I would say 75% of the real illustrative, here's what this law's really all about.
Punitive characteristics are being delayed or waived so that because people already hate it.
If they've if if people found out what was really in this, if if this thing fully implements someday, it's it's of course gonna be too late, then theoretically, if there hasn't been a full move to repeal it.
No, it's not about making it work at all.
It's about making sure it doesn't work.
The Democrat and the White House, Democrats in the White House, right now, their full-fledged objective is to make sure this bill does not work as designed, particularly before the elections.
I got taken a brief time out again, ladies and gentlemen.
Fastest three hours in media, we are storming along here.
We'll be right back after this.
And now we come to the uh interesting part of the program where I am just now hitting my stride.
Just now getting up set the table.
Now it's time to go full speed ahead, but there's also my manners and my sense of responsibility.
People are on hold, and they have been since the program began, since before it.
And they want to talk about some things I mentioned, and before the subjects become too old and taboo and others have been mentioned to replace them, I'm gonna go to the phones.
We're gonna start New Haven, Connecticut, with uh uh uh well, I don't understand the phonetic S. Mahan, it looks like.
Uh S. Mahan.
Anyway.
Yeah.
Yeah.
Thank you for calling.
Great to have you here.
Hello.
Hi, Mr. Rush.
How are you?
Very well.
Thank you very much.
I am a Turkish American, and I've been in America for 35 years.
And I travel all over the world, just 16 and a half years old.
I work all my life, and I end up Mary and wonderful man and everything, and I'm retired from Macy, and I live up 200, 2,200 a month.
And I used to have an insurance for 238 dollars, $5,000 deductible, and I have my doctor, and I'm very happy and pleased with my insurance.
But now I have to change it because Obama, oh, I'm so angry, I hate him.
Well, anyway, I have to pay six hundred dollars a month for same five thousand dollars.
That's the cheapest, cheapest insurance I can have for six hundred dollars a month.
And I think that's terrible, terrible to do it the normal.
I'm not a millionaire, I'm a just normal person.
And he's supposed to help us, but he doesn't.
He's hurting us.
He's terrible person.
He's heard, he's helping the people who don't want to work.
They want to stay home.
And I've been in the No, no, no, no.
You're misunderstanding this, Esmahan.
I'm glad you're called so I can straighten you out here.
You've had an unfair advantage ever since you arrived in America, and it's time the playing field was leveled.
You may not be a millionaire, but you have a job.
That's not fair.
If you if you can afford all this, you've got to have some kind of a job or you're retired and some sort of a pension it can pay for it.
This is called leveling the playing field.
This is called making sure that you find out what it's like to be somebody you're not.
Because it's not fair.
It's not fair that you have been able to provide all this yourself.
It's not fair.
So now you're gonna find out what it's like when you can't.
And you're you're gonna be dropped into the same boat with the the poor and unfortunate who are poor and unfortunate because America made them that way.
And so what what appears to you to be pu well it is punitive, uh, in fact.
Uh and I think I think the uh I don't I don't know.
let me ask you a quick question.
When all this was getting started, were you in favor of it?
Did you think it was going to be a benefit for you?
Obamacare, I mean.
No, I never think of it.
And I don't like him.
I never did like him because I know he's going to lie, because only stupid people believe him exist shh, but me and my husband, we're not.
We we we know what he's trying to do.
If that's true, then then there are a lot of stupid people.
By the way, uh I've got a story.
It's here, and it's a Forbes story.
Yes, right.
Here it is.
It's by Merrill Matthews.
The headline says it all.
We've crossed the tipping point.
Most Americans now receive government benefits.
Obamacare has pushed us over the entitlements tipping point.
In 2011, some 49.2% of U.S. households received benefits from one or more government programs.
That's about 151 million out of an estimated 37 million Americans.
This, according to the Census Bureau, says regime numbers.
Currently, around six million to seven million Americans who've signed up for Obamacare are receiving taxpayer-provided subsidies, even though they may not be qualified for them, and even though the regime's numbers cannot be trusted, we still have to deal with them because the only numbers we've got, and they're putting out six to seven million, and they're getting subsidies.
We know that many of them don't qualify.
And other three million have signed up for Medicaid.
That means some ten million Americans, now up to a total of a hundred and sixty one million, are now getting government subsidies of one sort or another.
Now, it may be a little lower than that, because some of these new benefits people may have already been getting some kind of benefit.
So it's it's close.
Um I don't I don't want to nitpick here, but it actually might be worse than 51%.
Because 87% of the eight million who've signed up for Obamacare do get a subsidy.
That's seven million people.
Medicaid expansion has enrolled not three million new, but four million more people.
So Obama has increased government dependence by eleven million people, which just happens to be the number of illegal aliens that we are told are living in the country.
Bottom line, we have crossed the tipping point, according to Forbes and any other person agency that wants to investigate it.
And it it appears it's really tight.
Either we have crossed the tipping point or it's just a matter of time.
Uh, this is Liz in Salt Lake City.
Hi, Liz.
Uh, glad you call.
Welcome to the EIB network.
Hello.
Hi, thank you for taking my call.
Yeah.
Um, I'm calling in regards to the insurance and Obamacare.
My daughter has a 20-year-old boyfriend, and he had his hours cut.
He just works at a restaurant trying to make his way, and he got his hours cut because of Obamacare.
They can't have him.
They can't afford to pay for the insurance.
Right.
By design.
That it would cost him.
And he is covered under his parents'insurance, so he doesn't even need the insurance.
But yet now he has to go look for another job to try to help pay his way through college.
No, no, no, no, no, no, no, no, not serious.
No, no, no.
No, no.
He can't part-time is it.
Larry Page, the Google co-founder, this is exactly what we want.
We want his job done by an additional two or three people.
That's how we actually get more people working without creating any new jobs.
Because socialism doesn't create jobs, it creates government bloat.
So what we need is uh people like your daughter's boyfriend being converted to part-time and then staying there so we can spend more time with you and your daughter and have a more well-rounded, enjoyable life, and then get subsidized for Obamacare, and then two other people can share the hours that he did have.
They won't have health insurance either, but Obamacare will take care of that.
And we got happiness all over America with people spending family time together, well-rounded lives, not dominated by work.
It's happening exactly as the left wants it to happen, Liz.
Sheila Jackson Lee took some lollipops to the illegal alien children.
She can get into these centers where they are.
Republicans are not allowed, nor is the media.
But she took some uh lollipops.
▲
Export Selection